Re: Re: starship-design: Re: Perihelion Maneuver

[kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu (Isaac Kuo)]

KellySt@aol.com wrote:
>In a message dated 11/18/97 2:03:16 AM, kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu wrote:

>>>> Maybe not, but IMO it's clearly sufficient for an interstellar probe
>>>> flyby mission, which is all it's really good for anyway (my rule
>>>> of thumb is that anything good enough to use for decelerating at
>>>> an unprepared target system is good enough for the acceleration
>>>> run.  Conversely, anything only good for the acceleration run
>>>> doesn't really help if you want to stop at the target system.)

>>>I'll buy that, but see your earlier argument _against_ the flyby mission.

>>My argument against Starwisp specifically is that it's not clear
>>it will ever be worth it, seeing as its sensor suite is so limited.

>>Something with the capabilities of Voyager would easily provide much
>>more detailed and reliable information on a nearby star system than
>>we could expect from future telescopes.

>But Telescopes can get results quicker and certainly can get as good a
>optical resolution from here.

Actually not.  Remember that resolution is proportional to the distance
from the observed object.  A Voyager-like probe could fly by an
atmosphere-less planet a kilometer from its surface.  That gives it
at least a 4x10^13 advantage in resolution compared to a Solar System
telescope.  Assuming the Voyager-like probe had a camera with a 1cm
lens, the Solar System telescope would need to be at _least_
4,000,000,000 kilometers in diameter to equal it.

>Given their greater flexiblity (use in multiple
> star systems with the same scop) and lower cost, they'ld probably prempt any
>starwisp class stellar probe.

Yes, but starwisp doesn't have anywhere near the capabilities of
Voyager.  (It needs a compound eye made up of individual optical
"cameras" with microscopic lenses.)

>>>> IMO, 10%c is sufficent for interstellar flyby missions.

>>>I wouldn't want to wait that long to get my data back.

>>What, 50 years?  By the time we start throwing around interstellar
>>probes, I'll bet average human lifespans are comfortably over 100
>>years.

>Does that mean people will have careers and lives that much more sedentary?

No.  But it's possible for people to work on more than one thing at
a time.  Do you think the Voyager team members just sort of bummed
around waiting for their probes to reach Saturn?

> Or funding sources that much more patent?  If it take a half century to get
>results, a inteligent person will wait a couple decades for faster cheaper
>systems.

Not if those "faster cheaper" systems aren't going to be much faster or
much cheaper.
-- 
    _____     Isaac Kuo kuo@bit.csc.lsu.edu http://www.csc.lsu.edu/~kuo
 __|_)o(_|__
/___________\ "Mari-san...  Yokatta...
\=\)-----(/=/  ...Yokatta go-buji de..." - Karigari Hiroshi